Evidence of meeting #142 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was board.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
I just wanted to get that on the record.
We see how even in our study, both the heritage committee and us, trying to understand how we both get information and put it together has been a challenge, but a creative one.
4:45 p.m.
Vice-Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Copyright Board
I would just add that where we can have an influence is in the overseeing or monitoring and management of the process once it's before the board. One of the things we will be doing in the following months is trying to instill more discipline—on ourselves, certainly, but also among parties, because it takes two to tango. In this case it takes three to tango, and if you want a fully efficient process before the Copyright Board, everybody has to play nice; everybody has to show discipline from the get-go.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
Dan Albas Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to start with the Copyright Board.
We've had witnesses say that decisions from the board can take years. I believe one witness stated it was seven years.
How is it even possible to take that long to get a decision on a tariff? Does one case take years of process, or does it just take years for the board to get to it?
4:45 p.m.
Vice-Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Copyright Board
I'll start with a few preliminary comments, and then I'll turn to the secretary general, who is one of the key persons involved in managing the process before the board. A lot of numbers fly around the board and a lot of myths as well.
The seven years assumes no stop between the beginning and the end of the process, but in reality a process can be stop-and-go. There are moments during the process when parties come to the board and say to hold off, because they're negotiating. That adds time to the clock.
That being said, we're fully conscious that there's pressure for the board to render decisions more quickly, hence the proposals that were presented by the government in Bill C-86, which would put in regulation a specific time frame for one piece of the process, which is the piece of the process that the board controls, the rendering of decision.
Gilles, I don't know if you want to add something.
4:45 p.m.
Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC
Will simply legislating a time period improve the system? How fundamentally will you address the current process?
4:50 p.m.
Vice-Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Copyright Board
It will be addressed based on that, but in addition the government will probably be introducing some regulations, and we will be introducing regulations because currently in the act, the board has a Governor in Council authority to be able to put in regulation—for instance, how we will be using case management to run a tighter ship so that eventually it leads to decisions being more thorough, still based on the evidence provided by the parties and still reflective of the public interest, which is a particular characteristic of the mandate of the Copyright Board, and ultimately to render decisions within the time frame the government will impose.
4:50 p.m.
Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC
I am mindful of the time that the chair will impose.
I questioned the deputy minister in regard to your not having asked for any budget extension or expansion, and he said it's simply because you have more than enough supply to be able to meet the demand.
How can you overhaul the Copyright Board and at the same time deliver or at least continue to process files without any extra resources?
4:50 p.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
Additional resources have been provided to the Copyright Board. They weren't in supplementary (A)s because our Treasury Board process is continuing. You wouldn't have seen an increase in the supplementary (A)s process, but it's a 30% increase in the total resources afforded to the board, so it's an increase of a third of their annual budget.
4:50 p.m.
Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC
That would have been really helpful to hear from the deputy.
Lastly, to the board, you say you would like the ability to issue licence for works the owner of which cannot be located. If the owner is not in the picture to make a claim, why would a licence even be necessary?
4:50 p.m.
Vice-Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Copyright Board
I'm going to ask my general counsel to take that question, if you don't mind.
4:50 p.m.
Sylvain Audet General Counsel, Copyright Board
That regime is one where the copyright subsists in the work; somebody wants to make use, so the rights are still protected. You cannot locate the owner, but the rights still subsist.
A regime under the act is provided for so there's a request, an application that can be submitted to the board. Some reasonable searches have to be done, and then the board oversees that process. Currently, one of the requirements is that it has to be a published work or published sound recording. Lately, especially, we've been facing a lot of situations where it's really hard to assess, and a lot of requests are based.... We're not able to determine with certainty that the work has been published.
4:50 p.m.
Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC
I would go back to it, then. If you're having difficulty resolving the fallacy you have where you have active rights holders who are seeking redress, then why would you want to have jurisdiction over areas where you cannot even locate someone who has it? To me, it sounds as if you're spending more time rather than servicing the people who are before the board.
4:50 p.m.
General Counsel, Copyright Board
It is in the act. It doesn't mean that they don't exist. There is still a provision, and a period of time where the rightful owner can come forward—there's a mechanism for them to come forward—and the licence provides for that eventuality.
4:50 p.m.
Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC
Mr. Lloyd, you can have the remainder of my time.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
December 5th, 2018 / 4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Thank you.
Thank you to the witnesses.
Madame Théberge, you noted in your written testimony here that you're recommending we change the act to grant the board the power to issue interim decisions. To your knowledge, why wasn't this included in Bill C-86?
4:50 p.m.
Vice-Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Copyright Board
I think it's probably a question more for the department than for the Copyright Board.
4:50 p.m.
Martin Simard Director, Copyright and Trademark Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
Yes, it was a request that we were conscious of. It was part of the consultation we ran. Some stakeholders were in favour of this; others were against it. Ultimately, the government felt that if either party can now request an interim decision, it seemed superfluous to have the board be able to come at it of its own volition, if neither the demander nor the opponent feel there's a need for an interim tariff.
It was not consensual in our consultation, so ultimately it was not included in the reforms.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Madame Théberge, do you think we missed an opportunity? Your second recommendation was to clarify the binding nature of the board tariffs. Do you think that in Bill C-86 we missed the opportunity, and that maybe this committee could, in part of its recommendations, encourage government to further clarify the binding nature of board tariffs and licences?
4:50 p.m.
Vice-Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Copyright Board
The board operates within a legislative framework that is imposed on the board. It is the government's prerogative to decide which is the most appropriate legislative vehicle to make changes to the act.
What we wanted to do here was acknowledge what we feel is an issue worthy of some study by the committee, because it is an issue that has an impact on what we do, on our business. What we hear through our business, or what we can certainly see from our business, is that there is some uncertainty with the interpretation of a Supreme Court decision. So we felt it was appropriate, given the scope of the parliamentary review, to put that forward.
I believe my colleague from the Department of Canadian Heritage also raised it. We just felt that it was appropriate to at least signal that this is something we think the committee members should be thinking about. It echoes a little bit what both department ministers have said in their letter to the chair of the committee.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Thank you very much.
We're going to move to Mr. Masse.
You have seven minutes.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Continuing on that line, it's really great to hear the eagerness to reform the Copyright Board. It's actually one of the things on which we see some consensus on this file. The noting of transparency, access and efficiency is, I think, hitting the mark with regard to what we're seeing on building consensus.
You suggested everything from a scrub to pre-emptive decision-making. My understanding is that the three suggestions you're making are all legislative requirements. Is that correct, that those would require some legislative amendments? My question is for your legal counsel.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you.
My question is for Mr. Simard. Did you consult the Copyright Board, and did they make these suggestions to your department for Bill C-86?